it is what it is, but it ain't what you think

Battle of the Lunatics

Do the descriptors “left” or “liberal” and “right” or “conservative” accurately depict the 2016 Democrat and Republican American Presidential candidates’ platforms?

Better yet, is it time to supplant them with terms like “avarice” and “hubris” respectively?

I think maybe. Or does LIAR cover them all?

President Obama, elected on his 2008 wide ranging traditionally left-wing ideology best represents what has become commonplace in Presidential candidates. He lied.

Once elected, he stocked his cabinet with Wall Street insiders thereby assuring America that no substantive changes much less reforms were afoot in the financial sector. Next, a war he decried while campaigning, along with all its dirty laundry (read: Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice) was sanctified and embellished. Mr. Obama then ceremoniously threw us a bone to appease us when he announced the late night raid and murder of Osama Bin Laden.

Many questions about that operation have gone unanswered, not the least because the entire Navy Seals team was neutralized in it’s own fiery crash, a fate shared with a number of O’bama and Clinton detractors, seemingly just before…

Jailing whistleblowers is NOT typically the habit of liberals since they traditionally stand for the rights of man. Mr. Obama proceeded to jail more whistleblowers (who presumably are on OUR side) than ALL of the past Presidents combined. I could continue on… but his record of foreign invasion, drone strikes killing innocents, murdering American citizens without due process ought speak for itself, yet I constantly hear his detractors label him a liberal.

That’s Cringeworthy.

Obama is now about where George W. Bush ended his 8-years of supply side (uh, that is if you are the military industrial sort) $400,000,000/day right-wing habit.

Ms. Clinton brings her hawkish actions for all to see while her supporters scream that Mr. Trump is a war monger. That may be true, but one ought not hurl stone while living in a glass house, even if the see-through curtains are drawn. And, if history is any guide, once elected Ms. Clinton will likely hop a few steps further right and up once her penchant for falsity is let loose.

Clintons pre-election rhetoric and past record are clearly right wing both socially and economically, per politicalcompass.org, a highly regarded independent think tank that studies such phenomena. It’s safe to say that Mr. Trump is bumping the edge of all things right wing, even causing traditional Party Republicans to jump ship in record numbers. He has solidified the term wing-nut for posterity.

It’s safe to say that this election will not be about who won, but who didn’t lose. Both seem to be giving their very best effort at losing… so the non-loser will be… anybody’s guess.

And the losers will remain… all American citizens.

Below are some other thoughts on this bru-ha-ha:

political stereotyping

Submitted by thom on August 18, 2016 –

Your criteria for submitting a guest post has been duly noted.

As for our shared experiences with vitriol in the comments section, I was immediately and fully aware of the motivations behind the reply to my initial (I thought) innocuous comment about a “complicit media” element which filters the truth in our news (aka: censorship). I had been briefed on “cognitive infiltration” by DARPA, the brainchild of one Cass Susstein, Obama’s 1st term information Czar. The commenter was an all-too-familiar player in one of the faux-news events of late, the details of which are extremely ugly to any free and open society. I had other reliable information about this person not made publicly available.

I was vaguely aware of your work on stereotypes and must say that my experience agrees with your findings for the most part. It has been my policy to tread carefully when the assumptive urge to stereotype someone tickles. It may be on-point or just as likely a false positive. Usually, I am right-ish.

While it seems obvious to me that the mere existence of a word that describes the general tendencies of individuals within certain groups of people is a sign of its usefulness and thus its correctness, it is important to note that defining these “groups” of people can be an exercise in futility in itself. I mean, in America saying “Southern” allows for certain accurate stereotyping but not as much as “Southern White…”. Of course the descriptor can reach further as “Southern White Baptist…” then Southern White Female Baptist, and so on.

And then there’s the differing rate of evolution of groups, making it harder to pin down those dependent on the “direction of the wind”, so to speak. Political labeling to me falls squarely into this arena, as empirical evidence clearly shows that current Democratic leaders differ widely from traditional Democratic ideology. It is not that they espouse an extreme end of a range of thought, but that they in fact espouse, reside, and engage in a traditionally conservative space.

This has indeed shoved the Republican mandate further right on the scale, defying any chance of stereotypical accuracy inside of labeling them “lunatics”. There is even evidence of the Republican stance on some issues as being left of the stereotypically labeled “leftys”. So much for accuracy…

The truth is that getting elected is the goal of the Party and that is accomplished by identifying with the voters (but I wonder Mr. Trump, is that your goal?). Since 9/11/2001 America has shifted right ideologically, but that shift isn’t reflected in the traditional Democratic Party platform or in most of their pre-election rhetoric, being dependent on traditional party voter identification. While alienating the far right, it solidifies the Left economic and social base (who are traditionally poorer, less educated, and more easily fooled by appearance and/or candidate rhetoric).

Yet the Liberal party candidate Clinton exhibits hawkish ideas, caters to Wall Street and banking big money corporations, aligns operatively with the large intelligence spying agencies and their surreptitious business interest partners (read: Google). As history shows, policy post election and pre-election rhetoric must inevitably collide… leaving the losing winners to pick up the pieces. In fact, the only accurate label supported by evidence of the supposed Liberal candidate Clinton might be… “LIAR”.

I wouldn’t feel safe presuming Democrat voters are liars, only that they are deluded.

Much the same can be said of the traditional (uh, stereotypical) Republican platform and the candidate on the current ticket for President. Mr. Trump has seen an exodus of Republican support after several famously ill-timed brainfarts have embarrassed Republican leadership and constituency alike. Any attempt to accurately stereotype based on Trump’s seat-of-the-pants ideology and traditional conservative dogma is a crap shoot at best.

It’s safe to say he’s for all things Trump.

I would argue that Political party stereotyping is seeing a new era of mind boggling inaccuracy, exacerbated by two of the most unlikely of candidates a rational mind can imagine. This election may well make Americans finally question and re-define their basic notions of democracy, choice, and the election process

I personally have recently been labeled a “liberal left winger” and a “greedy right wing nut” after posting my thoughts on various subjects. The truth is I am neither left, right, nor center and base my ideas on the perceived merits of individual issues regardless of party backing. I think that this stereotype disconnect is perpetrated by what I describe above. To me, Party affiliation is no longer a viable way of identifying (uh, accurately stereotyping) traits consistent in candidates or their ideology.